EC7-1 Ch. 8 Anchors Amendment 2012 NOM PDF

DGF meeting, 13.09.
2012 at Rambøll, Ørestaden

EC7-1, Intro of new Ch. 8 Anchors
Agenda
- Standards for design, execution and test of anchors
- Why we need an amendment for Ch. 8 Anchors in EC7-1
- Evolution Groups
- New / different in EN 1997-1:2004/prA1:2012 (CEN/TC 250/SC7 Doc N670)
NOM Sept 2012 1 www.aarsleff.com

Standards for design, execution and test
Design of anchorages anchors: TC 250 – EN 1997-1, Ch. 8

• ULS limits: safety factors on resistance … and load
• SLS limits: creep rates, load loss
• Lock-off load, limits, influence on ULS and/or SLS
Execution of ground anchors: TC 288 – EN 1537:1999 :2012

• Execution methods
• Tolerances
• Corrosion protection (durability)
• Limits of apparent free length
• Purpose and scope of tests (what to test), test methods
Testing of anchorages: TC 341 – EN-ISO 22477-5: ?

• Load steps or circles, observation periods (how to test)

Why we need an amendment of Ch. 8 Anchors
The current Ch.8 of EN 1997-1:2004

• is inconsistent regarding test or not test
• has no guidance on test loads or SLS limits
In the revised execution standard (EN 1537:2012):

• all about design is removed ... should enter EN 1997-1, Ch. 8
• all about testing is removed ... should enter EN-ISO 22477-5
Another problem:
When EN 1537:2012 is published, and EN 1537:1999 is withdrawn
there is no guidance of how to test anchors until EN-ISO 22477-5 is available
In the meantime a provisional solution should be found for each individual country:
Denmark will probably use the German DIN SPEC 18537:2012-02

From the current Ch.8 of EN 1997-1:2004
8.5.1 Design of the anchorage
(1)P The design value, Ra;d , of the pull-out resistance, Ra of an anchor shall fulfil the
limit condition:
Pd Ra;d (8.1)
(2) Design values of the pull-out resistance may be determined from the results of tests
on anchorages, or by calculation.

8.5.2 Design values of pull-out resistance determined from the results of tests
…
(3) The characteristic value should be related to the suitability test results by applying a
correlation factor a.
NOTE 8.5.2(3) refers to those types of anchorage that are not individually checked by
acceptance tests. If a correlation factor a is used, it must be based on experience or provided
for in the National annex.

8.8 Acceptance test
(1)P It shall be specified in the design that all grouted anchorages shall be subjected to
acceptance tests prior to lock-off and before they become operational.
This (clause (1)P) has been modified according to a corrigendum effective on 18

February 2009, EN 1997-1:2004/AC to:
(1)P All grouted anchorages shall be subjected to acceptance tests prior to lock-
off and before they become operational.

From EN 1537:1999 – and EN 1537:2012
9.7 Acceptance test
Each working anchor shall be subjected to an acceptance test.

Evolution Groups
What are the Eurocode 7 Evolution Groups?
At the 26th meeting of TC250/SC7 (the Eurocode 7 committee), a decision

was made to establish a number of 'Evolution Groups' (EGs) to look at the
technical issues that require improved coverage in a future revision of
Eurocode 7. A total of 12 EGs were established initially (with a further one
under consideration)
Link: http://www.eurocode7.com/sc7/evolutiongroups.html

Evolution Groups
EG1: Anchors
Eric Farrell (Ireland, AGL Consulting), convenor
Bernd Schuppener (Germany, BAW)
Klaus Dietz (Germany, Dietz Geotechnic Consult)
Brian Simpson (UK, Arup and BSI)
Caesar Merrifield (UK, Coffey Geotechnics and convenor of TC 288-WG14)
Pierre Schmitt (France, Soletanche-Bachy)
Yves Legendre (France, Soletanche-Bachy)
Arne Schram Simonsen (Norway, Multiconsult)
Ole Møller (Denmark, Aarsleff)

Evolution Groups (EGs)
EG0: Management and oversight

Andrew Bond (UK, Chairman SC7)
Giuseppe Scarpelli (Italy, Vice Chairman SC7)
Bernd Schuppener (Germany, Past Chairman SC7)
Roger Frank (France, Past Chairman SC7)
Mark Lurvink (Netherlands, Secretary SC7)

New / different : 8.1.1 Scope
Old (current)
(2)P This Section is applicable to;
— pre-stressed anchorages consisting of an anchor head, a tendon free length and a
tendon bond length bonded to the ground by grout;
— non pre-stressed anchorages consisting of an anchor head, a tendon free length
and a restraint such as a fixed anchor length bonded to the ground by grout, a
deadman anchorage, a screw anchor or a rock bolt.
(3) This Section does not apply to soil nails.
(4)P Section 7 shall apply to the design of anchorages comprising tension piles.
New
(2)P Tension members without a free length (such as tension piles) shall be designed
using the principles given in Section 7 ‘Pile foundations’.
(3)P Anchor walls used as dead-man anchors shall be designed using the principles
given in Section 9,‘Retaining structures’.
(4) This section does not cover the design of soil nails or rock bolts.

New / different : 8.1.2 Definitions
8.1.2.1
anchor
installation capable of transmitting an applied tensile load through a free length to a
load bearing stratum
8.1.2.2
grouted anchor
anchor that uses a bonded length formed of cement grout, resin or similar material to
transmit the tensile force to the ground
NOTE A ‘grouted anchor’ in EN 1997-1 is termed a ‘ground anchor’ in EN 1537.

New / different : Terms (not mentioned)
prestressed = active anchor
non prestressed = passive anchor
is a micro pile a passive anchor? No, it has no free length.
difference between a tension pile and an anchor? the free length
purpose of a free length: to document stability
purpose / need for prestress: to limit deformation
purpose / need for test: to document free length and geotechnical resistance

New / different : Discussion
NOM question:
What is the purpose of a free length if you do not test the anchor?
Consider the simple case, where you as a design engineer (client or

contractor) decides not to do acceptance test. Will you then intentionally
provide your ground anchor with a free length or not? And if you do, then why?
Answer from the other EG1-members:

If it was decided in advance not to do a load test and not to preload the
“anchor”, then a free length would not be necessary.
(NOM) Conclusion:
the need for test comes with the definition – the presence of a free length

New / different : Symbols (Terms mentioned)
EULS,d ULS design force to be resisted by the anchor
FULS,d design value of the ultimate limit state force required to prevent any
ultimate limit state in the supported structure.
FServ,k characteristic value of the maximum anchor force, including effect of

lock off load, and sufficient to prevent a serviceability limit state in the
supported structure
FServ,d design value of the maximum anchor force, including effect of lock off
load, and sufficient to prevent a serviceability limit state in the
supported structure

New / different : 8.2 Limit states
(3) For a group of anchors, the most critical failure surface should be
considered. Depending on spacing and the profile of ground strength, this may
involve displacement of part or all of the block contained by the anchors, often
combined with pull-out of the distal ends of the anchors.

New: 8.3 Design situations and actions
(3)P The design value of the anchor load shall be derived from the design of
the retained structure, taking into consideration ultimate and serviceability limit
states of the retained structure.
which is actually not new.
According to the current Ch. 8:
8.5.5 Design value of the anchorage load

(1)P The design value of the anchorage load, Pd, shall be derived from the design of
the retained structure as the maximum value of
— the ultimate limit state force applied by the retained structure, and if relevant
— the serviceability limit state force applied by the retained structure.

New: 8.5 Limit state design of anchors
8.5.1 General
(1)P The design value of the geotechnical ultimate limit state resistance of an anchor,
RULS;d, shall satisfy the following inequality:
EULS,d RULS;d (8.1)
where EULS,d = Max(FULS,d; FServ,d) (8.2)
and where FServ,d = Serv FServ,k (8.3)
Note: The value of partial factor Serv may be set by the National Annex. The recommended
value for persistent and transient situations is given in Table A.18.

8.5.1 General, cont.
(2)P When a separately evaluation of the serviceability limit state of the anchor is
required, the evaluation shall be carried out using formula (8.4).
F,SLS FServ,k RSLS;d (8.4)
NOTE 1 The National Annex may set whether a separate evaluation of the serviceability limit
state of the anchor is required.
NOTE 2 The National Annex may set whether the verifications for ultimate limit state and
serviceability limit state are to be carried out separately or in a combined procedure.
NOTE 3 The value of partial factor F,SLS may be set by the National Annex. The recommended
value is given in Table A.18.

8.5.1 General, cont.

New: 8.5.2 Geotechnical ULS resistance
(2)P The measured geotechnical ultimate limit state resistance of an anchor RULS;m shall be
determined as the lesser of the proof load or the load causing a limiting condition (Rm). The
limiting condition depends on the test method and may be:
• the asymptote to the creep rate vs load curve or
• the load corresponding to a limit value of the creep rate ( ULS) or
• the load corresponding to a limit value of load loss (kl ULS).
Thus:
RULS;m = Min { Rm ( ULS or kl ULS) and PP} (8.5)
NOTE The limit value of the creep rate ( ULS) or load loss (kl,ULS) may be set by the National Annex,
which may specify the use of an asymptote to the creep rate vs load curve in place of a specified value for
aULS. Provisional values for persistent and transient situations are given in Table A.21.

New: Geotechnical ULS and SLS resistance
Plot of creep rate (1) versus applied load (2) ... for Test Method 3 (EN 1537:1999)

RULS,m ... by Test Method 3 (from pr EN ISO 22477-5)

Critical creep load, Pc ... by Test Method 3 (from pr EN ISO 22477-5)

The concept of the “SLS” resistance comes from French practice:
Ts (Traction de service) min. {2/3 Ru ; 0,8 Pc} for permanent anchors

Ts (Traction de service) min. {2/3 Ru ; 0,9 Pc } for temporary anchors
Translation to Eurocode language:

Ts = FServ,k
Ru = RULS,k
1/0,8 = 1,25 = a,acc,SLS
1/(2/3) = 1,5 1,35 1,1= Serv a,ULS ( Serv is a load factor similar to F or E)
SLS: Ts 0,8 Pc (consider permanent anchors)

FServ,k 0,8 Pc = Pc / 1,25 = Pc / a,acc,SLS = RSLS,d
Define: RSLS,m = Pc and RSLS,k = RSLS;m,min / SLS = Pc,min / SLS ... ( SLS 1,00000)
F,SLS (= 1,0000) and F,SLS FServ,k (not to be taken as FServ,d nor FSLS,d)
F,SLS FServ,k RSLS,d (8.4) .... ( F,SLS = SLS = 1,0000) Voila!

The concept of the “SLS” resistance comes from French practice:
Ts (Traction de service) min. {2/3 Ru ; 0,8 Pc} for permanent anchors

Ts (Traction de service) min. {2/3 Ru ; 0,9 Pc } for temporary anchors
Translation to Eurocode language:

Ts = FServ,k
Ru = RULS,k
1/0,8 = 1,25 = a,acc,SLS
1/(2/3) = 1,5 1,35 1,1= Serv a,ULS ( Serv is a load factor similar to F or E)
ULS: Ts 2/3 Ru = Ru / 1,5

FServ,k RULS,k/1,5 = RULS,k/ (1,35 1,1)
1,35 FServ,k RULS;k / 1,1
Serv FServ,k RULS;m,min / ( ULS a,ULS )
FServ,d RULS;d (8.1), (8.2) and (8.3) ..... ( ULS = 1,0) Voila!
EULS;d = max {FULS,d ; FServ,d} RULS;d

New: 8.6 Tests on grouted anchors
8.6.2 Acceptance tests
(1) Acceptance tests shall be carried out on all grouted anchors in accordance with EN
ISO 22477-5 prior to their lock off and before they become operational.
(2)P The proof load, PP, to be applied to the anchor in an acceptance test shall be
derived from the ULS design force EULS;d or from FServ,k using the following
inequalities:
PP ≥ a,acc,ULS a,acc,ULS EULS;d (8.13)

or
PP ≥ a,acc,SLS a,acc,SLS F,SLS FServ,k (8.14)

NOTE 1: ...
NOTE 2: The National Annex may state whether the proof load in an acceptance test is
to be related to the ULS design force (8.13) or to FServ,k (8.14).
NOTE 3: ...
Values appear from Table A.20


(3)P For each test, the creep rate/load loss that occurs under the proof poad
and under other specified loads shall be less than limiting values.
NOTE 1: The limiting values for creep rate/load loss at Proof Load may be set by the
National Annex. Recommended values for persistent and transient situations are given
in Table A.21.
NOTE 2: The requirement to check creep rate/load loss at other specified loads, less
than the proof load, is optional and may be set by the National Annex. No provisional
values are provided in this Eurocode.

Investigation, suitability and acceptance tests

New: Lock-off load
Lock off load – the pre-stress load P0
What came first? The hen or the egg? Speaking of anchor loads, the lock off
load (the pre-stress) comes before the service load.
Thus you cannot relate or limit the lock off load to the service load. This will
imply a “circular reference”.
You can only relate the lock off load to a load, determined WITHOUT effect of
prestress.

New: Lock-off load
8.7 Lock-off load for prestressed anchors
(1)P The lock-off load should be sufficient to ensure serviceability of the

structure and supporting structures.
(2)P The lock-off load shall not give rise to a limit state in the ground, in the
structure or in supporting structures.
(3) Where tendon bond lengths of a group of anchors cross at spacings less
than 1,5 m (centre to centre), the pre-stress should be checked on selected
anchors after completion of the lock-off process.

Group effect or negative adverse interaction?
8.2 Limits states

(3) For a group of anchors, the most critical failure surface should be considered.
Depending on spacing and the profile of ground strength, this may involve
displacement of part or all of the block contained by the anchors, often combined with
pull-out of the distal ends of the anchors.
8.6.1 Investigation of suitability tests

(2) Grouted anchors with tendon bond lengths spaced at less than 1,5 m should be
tested in groups unless comparable experience has shown that the interaction has
quantifiable effects which can be taken into account.
8.7 Lock-off load for pre-stressed anchors

(3) Where tendon bond lengths of a group of anchors cross at spacings less than 1,5 m
(centre to centre), the pre-stress should be checked on selected anchors after
completion of the lock-off process.

Test of negative adverse interaction

Test of group effect

EC7-1 Ch. 8 Anchors Amendment 2012 NOM PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EC7-1 Ch. 8 Anchors Amendment 2012 NOM PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DGF meeting, 13.09.

2012 at Rambøll, Ørestaden

- Standards for design, execution and test of anchors

- Why we need an amendment for Ch. 8 Anchors in EC7-1

- New / different in EN 1997-1:2004/prA1:2012 (CEN/TC 250/SC7 Doc N670)

NOM Sept 2012 1 www.aarsleff.com

Design of anchorages anchors: TC 250 – EN 1997-1, Ch. 8

Execution of ground anchors: TC 288 – EN 1537:1999 :2012

Testing of anchorages: TC 341 – EN-ISO 22477-5: ?

NOM Sept 2012 2 www.aarsleff.com

The current Ch.8 of EN 1997-1:2004

In the revised execution standard (EN 1537:2012):

NOM Sept 2012 3 www.aarsleff.com

From the current Ch.8 of EN 1997-1:2004

8.5.1 Design of the anchorage

NOM Sept 2012 4 www.aarsleff.com

From the current Ch.8 of EN 1997-1:2004

NOM Sept 2012 5 www.aarsleff.com

From the current Ch.8 of EN 1997-1:2004

8.8 Acceptance test

This (clause (1)P) has been modified according to a corrigendum effective on 18

NOM Sept 2012 6 www.aarsleff.com

From EN 1537:1999 – and EN 1537:2012

9.7 Acceptance test

Each working anchor shall be subjected to an acceptance test.

NOM Sept 2012 7 www.aarsleff.com

What are the Eurocode 7 Evolution Groups?

At the 26th meeting of TC250/SC7 (the Eurocode 7 committee), a decision

NOM Sept 2012 8 www.aarsleff.com

NOM Sept 2012 9 www.aarsleff.com

EG0: Management and oversight

NOM Sept 2012 10 www.aarsleff.com

NOM Sept 2012 11 www.aarsleff.com

NOTE A ‘grouted anchor’ in EN 1997-1 is termed a ‘ground anchor’ in EN 1537.

NOM Sept 2012 12 www.aarsleff.com

prestressed = active anchor

non prestressed = passive anchor

is a micro pile a passive anchor? No, it has no free length.

difference between a tension pile and an anchor? the free length

purpose of a free length: to document stability

purpose / need for prestress: to limit deformation

NOM Sept 2012 13 www.aarsleff.com

Consider the simple case, where you as a design engineer (client or

Answer from the other EG1-members:

NOM Sept 2012 14 www.aarsleff.com

EULS,d ULS design force to be resisted by the anchor

FServ,k characteristic value of the maximum anchor force, including effect of

NOM Sept 2012 15 www.aarsleff.com

NOM Sept 2012 16 www.aarsleff.com

which is actually not new.

According to the current Ch. 8:

8.5.5 Design value of the anchorage load

NOM Sept 2012 17 www.aarsleff.com

EULS,d RULS;d (8.1)

where EULS,d = Max(FULS,d; FServ,d) (8.2)

and where FServ,d = Serv FServ,k (8.3)

NOM Sept 2012 18 www.aarsleff.com

8.5.1 General, cont.

F,SLS FServ,k RSLS;d (8.4)

NOM Sept 2012 19 www.aarsleff.com

8.5.1 General, cont.

NOM Sept 2012 20 www.aarsleff.com

• the asymptote to the creep rate vs load curve or